Absence of doctor in government Primary Health Centre during labour, coupled with nurses leaving patient unattended before delayed referral, constitutes institutional negligence violating right to life; State liable for compensation without recovery from staff.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

1.These Second Appeals are directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.124 of 2018, dated 12.01.2022, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree, passed in O.S.No.166 of 2012, dated 26.02.2016, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam.

2. The appellants in S.A.(MD)No.496 of 2022 are the defendants 1 and 2 and the appellant in S.A.(MD)No.737 of 2024 is the fourth defendant. The respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.166 of 2012, before the Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of wife of the first plaintiff and the mother of the second plaintiff, who died due to the medical negligence.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

(a) One Jayalakshmi, wife of the first plaintiff and mother of the second plaintiff, conceived for the second time in the year 2008. Upon learning of her pregnancy, she has been regularly taking treatment and receiving medical guidance at the Primary Health Centre, Thirunageswaram from 01.05.2008 to 17.10.2008. At the relevant point of time, the first defendant was serving as an Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Mid Wife, the second defendant as a staff nurse and the third defendant as medical officer in charge of the said Primary Health Centre. During her visit to the Primary Health Centre, the defendants 1 to 3 had informed that the growth of the foetus was normal and satisfactory.

(b) On 17.10.2008, at about 09.30 a.m., the first plaintiff took his wife, Jayalakshmi, to the Primary Health Centre, Thirunageswaram, for delivery. At the said Centre, certain medicines and injections were administered to induce artificial labour pain. As the labour pain was stated to be insufficient, the first plaintiff was advised to take his wife home and give her food (rice) to augment the pain. Acting on such instructions, the first plaintiff took his wife home and gave her rice with rasam.

(c) Thereafter, Jayalakshmi developed severe pain accompanied by excessive bleeding, and the first plaintiff, along with his sister-in-law, took her back to the Primary Health Centre at about 02.30 p.m. on the same day. The defendants 1 and 2, who were on duty at that time, advised that walking would help intensify the labour pain and made Jayalakshmi walk within the hospital campus. While so walking, she became exhausted and sat down. However, after about two hours, the defendants 1 and 2, without providing necessary treatment or arrangements, directed the first plaintiff to take her elsewhere for delivery, stating that the delivery could not be conducted at the Centre. The defendants 1 and 2, in a casual and negligent manner, at the eleventh hour, advised the first plaintiff to take Jayalakshmi to Kumbakonam, without even arranging an ambulance for her transfer.

d) The first plaintiff is an illiterate coolie worker. Left with no alternative, he took his wife in an auto-rickshaw to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Kumbakonam, and reached there at about 06.00 p.m. On arrival, the duty doctor informed that Jayalakshmi had been brought dead. The death of Jayalakshmi was solely due to the negligence and lack of due care on the part of the defendants 1 to 3. The first plaintiff has thus lost his wife